- 8 -
her relationship with Mr. Gans and his related businesses.
Petitioner contends that her alleged involvement with Neena
Mosha is sufficient to establish that she was not an employee of
Mr. Gans and his related businesses, but rather an employee or
agent of Neena Mosha. However, there are no records showing that
Neena Mosha was ever formed or that it conducted any viable
business.4 Petitioner maintains that the documentary evidence
was destroyed in the fire. She seems to further argue that
because she had viewed the document on at least two separate
occasions before the fire, that should suffice to prove the
existence of Neena Mosha, and thus her status as an independent
contractor. We disagree.
Assuming the purported sales contract existed, it is not the
only reliable evidence establishing the existence of an entity.
The record is severely lacking other forms of documentary
evidence corroborating the existence and/or operation of Neena
Mosha: for example, business cards; business bank accounts and
checks; business stationery; invoices for services rendered;
utility bills, including telephone bills; office supply
purchases; State business franchise tax filings; or testimony
from the alleged “investors” or business associates that Neena
Mosha provided consulting services (i.e., Avante Studios and
4 Petitioner testified that she invested $25,000 in Neena
Mosha in 1987 but provided no documentation to prove such
investment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011